govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-6_22-cv-00277-4

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TYLER DIVISION 
 
BRYAN WHEAT, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL 
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Plaintiff Bryan Wheat filed this appeal from a final administrative decision of 
the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an application for 
Social Security benefits. On March 22, 2024, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s 
final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for 
further proceedings. Docket No. 21. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 
authorization of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Docket No. 26. The 
Commissioner filed a response neither supp orting nor opposing the fee request. 
Docket No. 27. 
On May 26, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court 
grant the motion and award the movant, Bryan Konoski, $18,326.90 in fees to be paid 
out of Plaintiff’s past -due benefits, with movant then remitting the previously 
awarded EAJA fees to Plaintiff. Docket No. 28. No written objections have been filed. 
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 
Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). 
Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 
reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 
United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no 
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly 
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 28) as the findings of this Court. The 
motion for fees (Docket No. 26) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay the 
movant, Bryan Konoski, the sum of $18,326.90 out of Plaintiff Bryan Wheat’s past-
due benefits for fees incurred. Upon receipt of those fees, Bryan Konoski shall remit 
to Plaintiff the previously awarded EAJA fees in the amount of $11,593.65. 
 
 
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11th
June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight